a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by AdamM
AdamM  ·  2592 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Free Will ≈ Determinism, F.A.P.P.

Thanks for the reply, and the welcome! This is an interesting but difficult question (which is why I like to stick with the somewhat simpler question of practical implications).

First, it's very hard to even ask the question in a rigorous way. If you get technical about it, defining what's meant by "one" (as in "does one have free will"), or "consciously", or "agency" is quite a non-trivial problem. Under the eliminative materialist view, such a phrase can be argued to be simply incoherent, resting on "folk psychology" that leads us to believe in various illusions about ourselves (such as that we are conscious in the first place!). This is the angle that Daniel Dennet generally takes, and is probably (though I'm not certain about this) a factor in the reframing of "free will" under compatibilist accounts, and in claims that the question of free will has been "dissolved".

My personal opinion is that it is very likely we do posses a form of conscious agency (in the intuitive sense of what this means), but that established science would have to be modified in alarming ways before we'd be able to understand how it could work. The background for this opinion involves a chain of reasoning that is very long, circuitous, and speculative, so probably beyond the scope of this discussion :)





user-inactivated  ·  2592 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    The background for this opinion involves a chain of reasoning that is very long, circuitous, and speculative, so probably beyond the scope of this discussion :)

As a matter of fact, I'm curious to learn about the whole chain for as long as you're comfortable sharing it.

    First, it's very hard to even ask the question in a rigorous way.

You see, this is why I don't argue about basic things with people: they turn the argument into "what is <subject>, even?" instead of relying on the informal understanding of it that most human beings seem to possess. I don't think it's ever a viable conversation to have because it refuses the conversees the actual opportunity to explore the subject, as opposed to a pedantic (and likely unsuccessful one).

I'm not saying there's no value in defining terms of argument: I'm saying sometimes it is unnecessary and, perhaps, impossible beyond the intuitive scope that many possess.